POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

War Games, Simulated radar tracks, aircraft exceeding their max operating limits by more than 130-150 knots, inaccurate aircraft position reports, false aircraft target reports, aircraft converging -- flying virtually in formation with -- and then diverging from reported 9/11 aircraft, fighters launched in the wrong direction, aircraft seemingly still airborne after the alleged attack, poor communications, phones not working.... What happened in the skies on the morning of September 11, 2001? Why were our defenses ineffective? Pilots For 9/11 Truth analyze NORAD response, audio recordings as well as Radar data provided by government agencies.

Thanks, excellent presentation!!!! There's a lot of people I will be sending this video to! I've been attacked for almost10 years for my opinions of what I believed occurred on 9/11 and why it is so imperative for a new independent investigation. This video will definitely open some eyes, no matter how blind you may be!

I find it to be an excellent production. The professional sounding voice gives it a lot of credibility. and I think it does an excellent job of showing the confusing information that was inserted into the mix, targeted at those professionals tasked with responding to the emergency. (Note that the word "emergency" either never, or almost never came up. It should have, rather than "hijackers."}

I don't know if you are open to suggestions for "improvements" at this point, or not, but I certainly understand if that is not what is now needed.

Here are some things that came to my mind as I viewed it:

The first part, once some flight activity was noted, seemed to be in real time. Yet, it was hard to know if it was, or not. If it was, it would make the point of how slowly FAA ATC was responding (or. at least, the FOIA information indicated that it was. There is the question, since accurate response to FOIA requests was noted, on whether this information is accurate). They seemed to be in a "business as usual" frame of mind. However, if the viewer knew that it was being presented to them in slower than real time, then that concern would go away immediately. I, at this time, don't know if it was presented faster, the same as, or slower than real time.

I don't think the V-N diagram is going to mean anything to the average viewer, unless it is explained a little bit. In fact, the alleged speed of 150 or so beyond VMO is beyond the chart. I don't know what color code it should be given -- it is beyond red. Maybe you could assign another "color" to where it was, maybe a flashing red. Then if you show the cartoon image of the airplane in flashing red, the viewer could grasp the idea that it was "off the chart." I personally would rather see that indicated by a "flashing red" airplane, rather than an airplane breaking up. (Since, it could have been, as you indicate, a modified (replacement) airplane able to fly at that higher speed.

I think one of the most interesting new pieces of information is the evidence some of the planes were still flying after they allegedly had crashed. But maybe that's because I didn't already know about them.

I think the NORAD Z-POINT needs to be defined.

The Arlington Police officer testifying that an AAL airplane crashed into the Pentagon is a new one to me. Do we know who that was, by name?

When Norm Minetta is shown testifying, was that to the 9/11 Commission? If so, it would be good to indicate that. Also, I understand all of the records of Minetta's testimony have been removed from the 9/11 Commission's archives. If so, that would be a good piece of information to add. (I can run that down if needed.)

I find it to be an excellent production. The professional sounding voice gives it a lot of credibility. and I think it does an excellent job of showing the confusing information that was inserted into the mix, targeted at those professionals tasked with responding to the emergency. (Note that the word "emergency" either never, or almost never came up. It should have, rather than "hijackers."}

Thanks Dwain. Yes, Chris did an excellent job. That is his band playing through the credits at the end by the way... him singing.

QUOTE

I don't know if you are open to suggestions for "improvements" at this point, or not, but I certainly understand if that is not what is now needed.

Here are some things that came to my mind as I viewed it:

The first part, once some flight activity was noted, seemed to be in real time. Yet, it was hard to know if it was, or not. If it was, it would make the point of how slowly FAA ATC was responding (or. at least, the FOIA information indicated that it was. There is the question, since accurate response to FOIA requests was noted, on whether this information is accurate). They seemed to be in a "business as usual" frame of mind. However, if the viewer knew that it was being presented to them in slower than real time, then that concern would go away immediately. I, at this time, don't know if it was presented faster, the same as, or slower than real time.

The time was presented on-screen. It is a bit faster than real time. Especially when you consider AA11 departed at 0800, and was reported to crash into the North tower at 0846. Thats 46 mins for just the first aircraft path, the movie needed to be less than 44 mins (if it ends up going on TV... an hour show with commercials).

Here are all the NORAD audio tracks if you care to download and listen. I listened to them all. There was lots of confusion when the reports started to come in... it seems i captured the essence according to your statements, which is what i wanted to do.

I don't think the V-N diagram is going to mean anything to the average viewer, unless it is explained a little bit. In fact, the alleged speed of 150 or so beyond VMO is beyond the chart. I don't know what color code it should be given -- it is beyond red. Maybe you could assign another "color" to where it was, maybe a flashing red. Then if you show the cartoon image of the airplane in flashing red, the viewer could grasp the idea that it was "off the chart." I personally would rather see that indicated by a "flashing red" airplane, rather than an airplane breaking up. (Since, it could have been, as you indicate, a modified (replacement) airplane able to fly at that higher speed.

Agreed. But again, we needed to keep it under 44 mins and all the above is covered in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack", which was sourced by the narrator.

QUOTE

I think one of the most interesting new pieces of information is the evidence some of the planes were still flying after they allegedly had crashed. But maybe that's because I didn't already know about them.

woody did a lot of the work on the ACARS. I expanded upon it while also checking with Dennis. You can find some of his work in our forum with a search. Woody also provided the ACARS map.

QUOTE

I think the NORAD Z-POINT needs to be defined.

It was defined by lat/long. It was a waypoint to send the fighters until the report came in "15 east of JFK", which was a false report and repeated through the system. Due to the false location, the Otis Fighters were then sent to W-105 off the south coast of LI.

We covered this in the presentation and again it could have been expanded upon, but again, we were trying to keep it to 44 mins.

QUOTE

The Arlington Police officer testifying that an AAL airplane crashed into the Pentagon is a new one to me. Do we know who that was, by name?

I dont know who it was. Aldo and Craig can expand on this i'm sure.

QUOTE

When Norm Minetta is shown testifying, was that to the 9/11 Commission? If so, it would be good to indicate that. Also, I understand all of the records of Minetta's testimony have been removed from the 9/11 Commission's archives. If so, that would be a good piece of information to add. (I can run that down if needed.)

Dwain

The first Minetta statements were in front of the 9/11 Commission as indicated by speaking with Lee Hamilton in a Congressional Hearing setting. The second interview was done with MSNBC. I forgot to source it, but it's easy to find on YT.

I also wanted to expand on his statements of the flight path while talking with Monte from the FAA, as the flight path they describe conflicts with the NTSB flight path, but again, i needed to keep the presentation to 44 mins. If i do a directors cut (which i probably will), I'll include all of the above.

Thanks for your comments Dwain, this is what the forum is for.. .so people can ask questions and we can expand on our presentations. Hope this helps.

Very good, although some language elements go past me, for example what's a 'dozey doe' (sounds like) WRT that section on the Airborne Command Center approaching from the West as it nears other targets?

It is near the end, had a power outage and lost the page so would have to fetch again to give exact timing.